The  European  International  Model  United  

Nations  2014  

The  North  Atlantic  Council  

Civil  Emergency  Planning  in  the  Face  of  Natural  

Disasters  

Introduction  Natural disasters are constant threat to society and are evolving as more

dangerous and unpredictable. Even with advanced technology there is

very little we can do to prevent a natural disaster from destroying entire

cities and causing deaths of millions. Natural disasters where traditionally

dealt by individuals working independently or in local volunteer groups. To

prevent further destruction caused by natural disasters, nations have

undertaken research on the causes and the prevention of natural

calamities1. Nations have started to take responsibility to provide

emergency relief, insurance plans, and aid in reconstruction of property

lost to help the victims of the disaster.

In the last few decades, international public bodies and international

voluntary groups have shown an interest in the causes, consequences and

possible protection against disasters. Many loose groups of private

organisations such as the League of Red Cross Societies2 started

functioning to provide emergency disaster relief before international

bodies started to notice these problems. Since the early 1950’s the United

Nations family of Organisations such as Organisation of American States

(OAS) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have been giving

more financial support in understanding and preventing natural disasters.

Research, experimentation with warning systems, information exchange

and direct aid to victims of natural disasters by emergency relief

sometimes followed by long term reconstruction are being supported by

many international agencies such NATO.

History  of  NATO  and  Natural  Disasters  President Richard Nixon during a ministerial conference in Washington D.C

on April 10th 1969 suggested that the NATO countries develop a “Third

Dimension of program activity to deal with our concern for the quality of

1 http://www.igsu.ro/documente/SAEARI/NATO_CEP.pdf

2 http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/

life in this final third of the twentieth century”3. The North Atlantic Council

discussed this idea through the year of 1969 and on November 6th 1969

created the Committee on Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) and was

given the task on how to improve, in every manner, exchange of views,

information and experience among partner countries to create better

environment for their society and to consider specific troubles of the

environment with the main aim of stimulating action of the allied

countries.

On December 8th 1969 the NATO committee on CCMS held its first plenary

meeting in Brussels.4 Since the main aim of CCMS was to create a better

environment it wasn’t surprising that from the original 8 specific subjects

approved for CCMS research and action, seven of them dealt with

Highway safety, water pollution, air pollution, oil spills and other

environmental concerns. All these subjects were directly related to

modernization and industrialisation of society.

The remaining topic of research was approved in the meeting of CCMS

was the risk posed by natural disasters rather than the works of man.

Natural disasters are certainly not a modern occurrence and they are not

specific to modernized and industrialized societies. The impacts on these

natural disasters are increasingly strong on modern societies and the

threat to those societies is growing rapidly. This problem area is clearly

mentioned in the mandate of the CCMS and is also well within the broad

language of Article 2 of The North Atlantic Treaty5 charging the parties to

the treaty with “promoting stability and well being”6.

3http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2009/0103/comm/berlind_nato.html

4 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-73D946BB-9E0F9289/natolive/news_26744.htm

5 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

6 idem

The Disaster Assistance Program, which was endorsed by the CCMS on

December 9th 1969 and approved by the North Atlantic Council on January

28th 1970, was implemented due to the initiative of the United States of

America7.

The United States and Italy were designated as pilot and co-pilot nations

because they were most prone to natural disasters than most countries.

The United States and Italy are the appropriate leaders as they are highly

experienced by the number and severity of natural disasters and their

national governments are deeply concerned with causes and

consequences of natural disasters. Turkey also qualified on the grounds of

experience with natural disasters was made a second co-pilot nation. As

the pilot and co-pilot nations, they assume the responsibility to plan, fund

most of its costs and oversee that the desirable actions are produced from

specific projects and reporting directly from the Disaster Assistance

Program to NATO.

Military  and  Civil  Defence  Assets  (MCDA)  Five years after the “Guidelines on the Use of MCDA in Disaster Relief”

were made at a conference in Oslo, UN-OCHA felt the need to update

these guidelines, and to conduct another conference on the lessons

learned since 1994 concerning the purpose of these guidelines8.

The general intention of the conference was to increase cooperation

between military and civil defense workforces and workers of

humanitarian agencies and NGO’s working towards common aims in

unexpected natural disasters.

The conference decided that the guidelines on the use of Military and Civil

Defense assets (MCDA) in disaster relief were an important tool; though

there was a need to update these guidelines. There was agreement that,

while the guidelines remain directly related to natural and technological

7 http://www.nato.int/eadrcc/mcda-e.pdf

8 idem

disasters and should remain unaffected whenever possible, there are

problems surrounding their applicability to multifaceted emergencies

which should be tackled and resolved.

Euro-­‐Atlantic  Disaster  Response  Coordination  Centre  (EADRCC)  The main area of CEP activity today is possibly the safety of civilian

populations in various crises, especially in the occurrence of natural

disaster. The Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme enables the Alliance

to cooperate with its partners within Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in

preparation and response measures to disasters. The establishment of the

EADRCC (Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre) and

EADRU (Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Unit) in 1998 was a key step

forward for the EACP (Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) countries in their

common endeavor to provide assistance to affected populations in the

Euro- Atlantic area.

The Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre has described

itself as a “focal point for coordinating disaster relief efforts among NATO

member and partner countries”9 Its main function is to manage the

response of NATO and partner countries to natural and man- made

disasters within the Euro-Atlantic area. The center also functions as an

information-sharing tool of disaster assistance for NATO and its partner

countries. Disaster management actions are performed in close

cooperation with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs (UN- OCHA), which holds the chief role in the

coordination of international disaster relief operations. Therefore, the

EADRCC is intended as a regional coordination mechanism, as a

supportive and complementary to the UN in its efforts, rather than

challenging it. The EAPC’s coordinating role is vital in this matter: based

upon the information provided by the EADRCC, the members and partner

countries decide whether to provide assistance, and if so, what level of aid

to provide.

9 EADRCC 2010 Handbook

The EADRCC’s responsibilities are to inform NATO’s Secretary General of

any disasters in EAPC countries, to coordinate a disaster response in the

EAPC area if the stricken country requires it, to function as a medium for

information sharing on disaster relief within the EAPC, and to develop the

concept of the Euro Atlantic Disaster Response Unit. The latter is a non-

standing, ad-hoc unit, a combination of civilian and military elements. Its

structure and power depend upon the nature and scope of the disaster in

question, and as a general rule such a unit functions within the EAPC

area. The EADRU can be positioned to the major disaster site at the

appeal of the afflicted EAPC country, although the EAPC members who

contribute various elements to the unit decide upon their placement. The

cooperation between the civilian and military structures of the various

countries forms a solid basis to develop the interactions necessary to

provide an efficient disaster response. Military assets, such as NATO's

AWACS (Airborne Early Warning and Control), the NRF (NATO Response

Force) and the Multinational CBRN Battalion have also been engaged in

some of NATO's current operations in the field of civil emergencies. Two

recent operations deserve special reference: NATO's intervention in reply

to Hurricane Katrina in the United States in August 2005, and NATO's help

to Pakistan following the earthquake in Kashmir in October 2005. In both

cases, NATO's response to a natural disaster combined the traditional

intervention of the EADRCC with a military factor, through the use of the

NRF in particular10.

Disaster  Assistance  outside  NATO  boundaries  In the original procedures of NATO cooperation of Disaster assistance in

Peacetime, which was established in 1953, had no provisions to help a

non-NATO member if a disaster hit them. However if a known

international organisation requested them, the NATO would be ready to

employ these procedures.

10 NATO handbook 2010

• If a non-NATO country requires assistance, bilateral arrangements

would normally be made between a NATO member and the afflicted

country. If the assisting member obtained information on the needs

of the stricken country it should pass this information and

information regarding the assistance needed to the rest of the

members or the Secretary General;

• If an international organisation requests assistance on behalf of the

afflicted country, the Secretary General will activate the necessary

parts of the international staff to help promote assistance for the hit

country.

The UN is the main agency for the coordination of international disaster

relief operations. Recently, the UN has taken a number of actions to

increase its leadership and primary coordinating role. The setting up of

the United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), its subsequent

replacement by the Department of Humanitarian Affairs (UNHDA), and the

founding of the post of Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs

were made to strengthen and improve collective efforts of the

international community in disaster assistance11. The General Assembly’s

asked for assistance between the UN and interested governments and

intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to enable the UN

to have greater access to their emergency relief capacities, including

personnel and logistic support, was designed to further strengthen the

lead role of the UN in this field.

Moldova is example of the above policies when in September 1994;

Moldova was struck by flooding following widespread rainfall. The

government of Moldova asked NATO for assistance. But NATO could not

act immediately, because the procedures at that moment did not allow for

direct assistance to our new partner countries. NATO could only act after a

member nation of the Alliance asked assistance on behalf of Moldova.

11 http://www.preventionweb.net/files/resolutions/NL800388.pdf

The flooding in Moldova was reason for a review of the NATO policy for

disaster assistance now taking into consideration the modalities for

cooperation with, and support to, North Atlantic Cooperation Council

(NACC) and Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries. On the 12th May 1995,

the North Atlantic Council accepted this modified Policy for Disaster

Assistance in Peacetime, which was noted on the 29th May 1995 by the

North Atlantic Cooperation Council in Ministerial Session12.

The overriding decision on whether or not to respond to an appeal to

assist in disaster relief rests with the individual governments of NATO’s

member countries; this will usually be in response to an approach from

the government of the stricken country, the UN or other relevant

organization. NATO will not seek to create an independent humanitarian

role for itself on its own account, nor will NATO insert itself as another

layer in the organization of international disaster relief. The Alliance

should not replicate or cut across the work of other international

organizations set up specifically to ease disasters. Civil assets will always

remain under control of the government. The standard practice for the

relevant international organizations is to consult with nations and

simultaneously to keep NATO informed of their approach to capitals13.

Case  Studies  

Romania,  2000  In April 2000, unusual high temperatures caused quick melting of snow

and the additional heavy rains resulted in the flooding of the basins of

rivers in the northwestern part of Romania. 16 of its 42 counties were

affected by the rain and melting on snow. A total of 1,150 persons were

left homeless, 1,390 people were evacuated, 9 people died and 497 towns

and villages were affected with 28 of them isolated. The total number of

damaged houses was 4,185 and about 93,000 hectares of agricultural

12 https://www.cimicweb.org/cmo/compapp/Documents/NATO/mcda-e.pdf

13 idem

land were flooded. In addition, 735 bridges were left damaged and 14.6

km of dams needed repair14. The Romanian Government through its civil

protection Command requested for international assistance through the

EADRCC on 14 April 2000. The EADRCC immediately followed the normal

procedures by contacting UN-OCHA and appealed to all EAPC nations. In

close cooperation with the Romanian authorities and with the countries

providing aid, the Centre remained the focal point for information sharing

issuing in total 6 situation reports. The relief items requested by Romania

included water purification equipment, engineering equipment for dam

reconstruction, electrical power generators, vaccination, tents, sleeping

kits, 1,000,000 sandbags and diesel fuel.

Response came from Denmark, France, Moldova, Poland, Slovenia by

providing among others tents, blankets, field kitchens, mobile water

purification equipment, bottled water, water tanks, food items, trucks,

mattresses, sleeping bags and beds.

Hungary,  2000  During the same timeframe of the Romanian floods in April 2000 Hungary

suffered due to torrential rain in the country’s eastern and northeastern

areas along with a rise in temperature and consequent snow melting. A

serious flood situation developed at the Tisza and Bodrog rivers with

water levels reaching critical that affected 4 of the 19 counties in the

country. The soaking dikes had difficulty to hold the pressure of the

increased water levels. Consequently problematical drainage of water

jeopardized houses in low land and resulted in evacuation of citizens and

inaccessible farms15. On the 18th April, the government of Hungary

through its Ministry of Interior requested the EADRCC to inform EAPC

nations about the situation and urgently made a plea for 2,000,000

sandbags. That same day the Centre circulated a crucial international

14 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4927688.stm

15http://www.stabilitypact.org/rt/Report%20on%20April%202006%20floods%20by%20D

PPI%20Office.pdf

appeal to the pre-identified Points of Contact for international disaster

response in NATO and Partner countries. As the focal point for information

sharing, the EADRCC circulated three situation reports and again working

closely with UN- OCHA, the Hungarian authorities and with the countries

providing aid.

Within 24 hours several countries provided assistance; on this occasion,

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,

Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United States. The

response to the Hungarian request received an overwhelming response

with 5,851,000 sandbags provided, more than 60% of the sandbags were

delivered due to the EADRCC’s efforts. On 20 April, Hungary informs the

EADRCC that the requirement for sandbags had been met16.

United  States  of  America17,  2005  

On 29 August 2005, Hurricane Katrina battered the United States gulf

coast causing widespread devastation. A formal request for assistance

from the United States was received by EADRCC on 3 September and was

instantly dispatched to EAPC capitals. Thirty-nine EAPC countries

responded by offering assistance coordinated through the EADRCC. On 4

September, a liaison officer was deployed on behalf of the EADRCC to the

afflicted area. His main role was to keep the US Federal Emergency

Management Agency and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance well

informed about the relief activities.

Following the US request, on 8 September 2005, the North Atlantic

Council endorsed a NATO transport operation to help move urgently

needed items from Europe to the US using NATO Airborne Early Warning

(NAEW) Training and Cargo aircraft (TCA) and NATO Response Force

(NRF) airlift capabilities. The EADRCC acted as a clearinghouse, gathering

16 idem

17 http://www.igsu.ro/documente/SAEARI/NATO_CEP.pdf

requests and offers of assistance. In total, 189 tons of relief and

emergency supplies were flown to the US. This operation ended on 2

October 2005.

Pakistan,  200518  On 8 October 2005, a destructive earthquake struck Pakistan triggering

more than 73,000 deaths and leaving over 4 million people displaced. On

10 October, Pakistani authorities contacted NATO with an official appeal

for help.

The first phase of the relief operation was an air-bridge. Operating as the

point of contact, the EADRCC started links between national aid

authorities and the Pakistani authorities. NATO Response Force’s tactical

aircraft was used to transport aid to the embarkation point in Turkey

before being flown by planned airlift to Pakistan.

On 13 October 2005, the EADRCC received the initial request from the

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to airlift relief

supplies to Pakistan. The first NATO relief flight reached in Pakistan on 14

October 2005. In addition to the UNHCR, two other UN agencies also used

the NATO air-bridge: the World Food Programme and UNOCHA.

The following stage of the relief operation involved the distribution of a

command and control headquarters, engineer units, helicopters and

military field hospitals all with suitable support. NATO’s main role was the

maintenance of the air bridge, help restore the critical road infrastructure

and provide make shift medical acre while working closely with the UN

and Pakistani authorities. The main purpose of this aid was to assist the

survivors of the earthquake face the upcoming winter.

By the beginning of December 2005, most essentials were in place and

were contributing efficiently to the relief efforts in the Bagh area, which

was the main focus are for NATO. NATO concluded its operation in

Pakistan on 8 February 2006.

18 http://www.igsu.ro/documente/SAEARI/NATO_CEP.pdf

Implementation and Challenges Faced by CEP

The primary aim of NATO’s Civil Emergency Planning (CEP) is “to

coordinate national planning activities to ensure the most effective use of

civil resources in collective support of Alliance strategic objectives”19.

Countries can no longer depend on purely national solutions for wide-

ranging emergencies, particularly given the distorted nature of today’s

risks and the volatile security environment. Disruptions to infrastructure,

such as transport, energy and communication networks, often have

international consequences. As such, NATO Civil Emergency Planning has

also progressed into a fundamental area of engagement and collaboration

with Partners. Civil emergency planning remains the duty of the national

governments involved in the program, and civilian assets remain under

their jurisdiction. NATO, however, plays a deliberate role in harmonizing

and coordinating joint capabilities to guarantee that mutually developed

plans and procedures will work and that the essential assets are available

as and when required. CEP tackles the basic security concerns of the

Alliance, namely, supporting military defense and crisis response

operations, supporting national authorities during civil emergencies, and

ensuring civilian populations are secure. In the words of the NATO

Handbook, CEP is intended for use in “war, crises and disasters”. CEP

covers several areas of civil activity, such as inland surface transport,

ocean shipping, civil aviation, food and agriculture, industrial production

and supply, post and telecommunications, medical matters and civil

protection.

Civil Emergencies, natural or man-made, are a field where both civilian

and military authorities unite. NATO provides an efficient forum in which

the use of civilian and military assets can be merged to achieve a desired

goal. Certain civilian assets have been a part of NATO’s operations in

Afghanistan and Kosovo. Similarly, military resources are often vital in

supportive operations for civilian populations such as disaster and

19 NATO Handbook 2010

humanitarian relief. NATO utilized military assets in operations following

hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Pakistan.

The internationalization of crisis response is written into the CEP program

itself: it includes NATO member countries, partner countries, and at the

working level even non-NATO and non-partner countries. It also involves

the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe, other international organizations

and NGOs. The policymaking process is in overall based upon the will of

those countries contributing the resources to the mission: they decide

which the civilian and military features are to be involved in the crisis

response; they decide which tools will be used to offer assistance to the

affected country; the affected country makes the decision to ask for

assistance; the CEP elements are added to the national disaster relief

units of the stricken country and operate under their coordination.

Communication in crisis is coordinated through the EADRCC as an

information-sharing tool, however it is frequently the case that affected

countries appear to be incapable to provide information on the help

required, hence NATO’s experts must visit the area to outline the needs.

Various countries within the EAPC area and between CEP structures and

the UN-OCHA provide coordination, while special care is given to

cooperation with Russia, Ukraine, and the Mediterranean Dialogue

countries. Cooperation between the civil and military arrangements

involved in the crisis response should also be free of competition and

conflict.

It is evident from an examination of CEP documents and structures that

coordination with UN-OCHA is well done. Closer cooperation with the EU,

however, is essential, due to the EU’s strong civilian instruments. As

NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly document states: “In the areas where EU

and NATO initiatives overlap, such as program and mechanisms for

disaster prevention and preparedness, coordination and a clear division of

labor between both organizations would be highly desirable to avoid

duplication. In the current context, NATO has proved better suited for

large operations, including in far-away places, whereas the EU could

provide a useful framework for intra-EU operations. Moreover, the

European project of ‘civil protection modules’ could allow for the

development of reinforced cooperation between a limited numbers of

interested countries. Such types of cooperation already exist among

several European countries”20. Cooperation between NATO and the EU

could be also enhanced through combined threat evaluations, joint

meetings of administrative bodies, joint financing of science and

technology programs, training programs and exercises.

Conclusion    For more than fifty years NATO has been interested in protect the world’s

population. Partnership for Peace has permitted NATO to co-operate with

its Partners in disaster preparedness as well as in disaster response in

Partner Countries as well as in NATO countries. While a extremely

effective program of cooperation in the area of Civil Emergency Planning

is the continued enrichment of Civil Preparedness in the Partner Countries,

the creation of the EADRCC and development of the EADRU signify a

major step forward in the cooperative efforts of EAPC countries to offer

aid to populations struck by major disasters. Moreover, it proves the

willingness of EAPC countries to engage in practical collaboration in an

area of utmost importance to all nations and to provide the EAPC

countries with an active ability.

Questions  A  Resolution  Must  Answer  (QARMAs):  1) The issue of natural disasters, their cause and consequences, is an

important issue but the critical question is how important is it

relatively, alongside other current issues that the NATO faces?

2) How can the NATO states best meet the need for increased

information on natural disasters and the immediate relief in the

aftermath?

20 Idem

3) Should NATO give equal assistance to Non-NATO members?

Bibliography  and  important  sites:  1) Decision Support for Natural Disasters and Intentional Threats to

Water Security (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series

(Environmental Security) by Tissa Illangasekare (Editor), Katarina

Mahutova (Editor), John J. Barich (Editor)

2) Damage Assessment and Reconstruction after War or Natural  Disaster by Ibrahimbegovic, Adnan, Zlatar, Muhamed

3) North Atlantic Treaty Organization: http://www.nato.int/

4) The Euro Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Center:

http://www.nato.int/eadrcc/

5) NATO Backgrounder:

http://www.igsu.ro/documente/SAEARI/NATO_CEP.pdf

6) BBC News website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

7) CNN U.S. website: http://articles.cnn.com/

8) The Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/

9) International Court of Justice (ICJ) website: http://www.icj-

cij.org/homepage/index.php

10) International Monetary Fund (IMF) website:

http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm

11) Reuters website: http://www.reuters.com

12) United Nations website: http://www.un.org/

13) United Nations Charter: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

14) United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

(OCHA) website: http://www.unocha.org/